KNIGHT v. MURPHY, et al
Filing
69
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion to Dismiss. Motion granted as to Count XVIII against Nurse Harr and denied as to Count XIX against Nurse Kincaid. Further granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion to Dismiss . Motion granted as to Counts I and XV (access to courts), Count XVI (excessive force), Counts II and IV (failure to intervene), Counts V, X, XI, and XIV (retaliation), Counts III and XVII (due process), Count XX (failure to train subordinates), Co unts XXI and XXII (conspiracy), and Count XXIII (preclusion to exhaust administrative remedies) and denied as to Counts VI, VIII, and XII (excessive force), Counts VII, IX, and XIII (failure to intervene) and Count XIX (deliberate indifference). Fu rther denied without prejudice as to Count XXIV (mental and emotional injury). Further defendant J. WILLIAMS dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Further remanding case back to Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings. 66 Report and Recommendation of Judge Lenihan adopted as the opinion of the Court. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 3/28/14. (njt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MELVIN KNIGHT,
Plaintiff,
V.
JOHN R. WALTON, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:12cv984
Electronic Filing
District Judge David S. Cercone
Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
,_
'-( MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW, this
lt
day of March, 2014, after the Plaintiff, Melvin Knight, filed an
action in the above-captioned case, and after a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 66) was
filed by the United States Magistrate Judge giving the parties until March 10, 2014, to file
written objections thereto, and granting an extension until March 27, 2010, for objections to be
received by the Court, and no objections having been filed or received, 1 and upon independent
review of the record, and upon consideration ofthe Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, which is adopted as the opinion of this Court,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for the reasons set forth in that Report and
Recommendation, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Nurse Defendants (ECF No. 47) is
GRANTED as to Count XVIII against Nurse Harr and DENIED as to Count XIX against Nurse
Kincaid.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for the reasons set forth in the Report and
Recommendation, the County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED as to
Counts I and XV (access to courts); Count XVI (excessive force); Counts II and IV (failure to
1
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Withdraw Proposed Objections (ECF No. 68) on March 27, 2010. In his
motion, he states that he will not be filing any objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation.
intervene); Counts V, X, XI, XIV (retaliation); Counts III and XVII (due process); Count XX
(failure to train subordinates); Counts XXI and XXII (conspiracy); and Count XXIII (preclusion
to exhaust administrative remedies). The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Counts VI, VIII,
XII (excessive force); Counts VII, IX, XIII (failure to intervene); and Count XIX (deliberate
indifference to physiological needs). The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as to Count XXIV (mental and emotional injury).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant J. Williams is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for the Plaintiffs failure to prosecute.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Amendment of the Complaint as to the Counts where
the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim is futile and such relief is not granted.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is remanded back to the Magistrate
Judge for all further pre-trial proceedings.
David Stewart Cercone
United States District Judge
cc:
Honorable Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Melvin Knight
KR 9608
SCI Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370
(Via First Class Mail)
Thomas P. Pellis, Esquire
Jennifer M. Kirschler, Esquire
George P. Kachulis, Esquire
(Via CMIECF Electronic Mail)
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?